Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 56 of 56
Like Tree14Likes

Thread: Gap Between Rookie and FA Contracts Mean We Must Redefine The Word "Reach"

  1. #46
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is online now Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,492
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Gap Between Rookie and FA Contracts Mean We Must Redefine The Word "Reach"

    It is truly amazing how far you are going to try to "win" this argument. This will be my final response to you (and, frankly, its probably one too many):

    Quote Originally Posted by codeman123 View Post
    Looking at the value on draft picks (financially) based on free agents is ridiculous. That is one of the problems with this argument. Two comparisons here are valid -
    1) Rookie wage scale contracts to rookie contracts before a wage scale
    2) Rookie contracts compared to the other prospects in the same class
    Wrong. If a team needs a new starter at a given position, it makes all the sense in the world to consider both FA and the draft as a means of aquiring the right player. To fully evaluate the teams' options, the "going rate" is extremely relevant. Today's inflation of FA contracts and deflation of rookie contracts makes a difference because, in the end, teams have to stay within the cap.

    Blackmon was never 'not worth' the 6th pick because of his contract. Criticism was purely based on his physical attributes and his level of competition.
    Wrong again. There were people who said they like Blackmon, but the No. 2 (and later, No. 6) picks were too high. In the end, the biggest difference between spending a No. 6 pick and a No. 12 pick (apart from trade potential) is money.

    Jason Smith was a horrible pick. His lack of success and the fact that another player could have been more successful is what hurts teams and fans. His ridiculous contract is just salt on the wounds.
    Actually, he's a good example. Smith's cap number impacts every decision the Rams will make regarding his future. If his cap number were substantially lower, it would not be such a big concern.

    That is reaching for need, which is a horrible personnel decision past and present. The Rams taking a receiver because they need one (and not taking a superior prospect) is dangerous with or without a rookie wage scale.
    No, its dangerous with a rookie scale, and its potentially catastrophic without one. Of course, if you go back to my original post, I specifically said that teams should take the BPA on their boards, so I don't know why you're even arguing about drafting purely for need.

    How can a contract value honestly vault him into a position where reaching for him is rationalized as not a 'clear reach' based solely on money. Especially when every other player would have been in the same financial position compared to the veterans that play their position. A reach before is still a reach now.
    I frankly have no idea what you're trying to say here, other than it has absolutely nothing to do with my argument.

    You’re even saying that the contract analysis from your post is meaningless in the decision making process, whether you realize it or not.
    Good Lord you are clueless. I never said anything of the kind.

    I believe teams absolutely are considering the scale as they make their choices. For example, if the Rams are left with the option of taking Trent Richardson (BPA) or a player at a "need" spot (Reiff, Floyd, Poe), I think the fact that Richardson - even as a player who will share time with Steven Jackson - is affordable under the rookie scale will factor heavily in their decision.

    When Jacksonville took Alualu at 10, they reached. They didn't need lessened financial constraints to pick him. They missed out on much better players behind him by reaching for him, but that is how the draft works.
    Or maybe they just made an ill-advised pick.

    Taking Poe (for example) is a reach. How does his contract have anything to do with his draft position, or the after the fact judgment of whether or not it was a reach. Or even how much of a reach it was. It’s not a ‘lesser reach’ because he is making 15 million dollars over 4 years instead of 22.
    Of course it is a "lesser reach." With a lower cap number, a player who underperforms can be traded, replaced or even released without saddling the team with nearly as much "dead money." Seriously, what are you talking about?

    After all of that, you haven’t even answered or defended your actual premise or argument.
    No, I've just avoided your strawman arguments based upon your complete inability to comprehend the point of this thread. I don't exist on this board to respond to those who (either through ignorance, poor reading skills, or a deliberate plan to antagonize) twist my words into something entirely different from their clear meaning.

    PS – As far as deleting my post, it’s hard to imagine you not being upset if a post or yours on another forum was deleted. I call BS to you implying you wouldn’t get ‘your panties in a knot’. Also, a normal human being, after accidentally deleting a post, would write a post like ‘oops, didn’t mean to delete your post. I hit the wrong button by accident, sorry about that’. I didn’t forecast anywhere that you were about to, yet alone willing to do that. I guess you expected me to reread the thread and forget I wasted 15 minutes writing something that doesn’t exist. Classy stuff.
    I'll try to remember to send you a fruit basket with a formal apology note, Nancy.
    Last edited by AvengerRam; -03-20-2012 at 08:00 PM.
    Rammed and BarronWade like this.


  2. #47
    DE_Ramfan's Avatar
    DE_Ramfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
    Posts
    908
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Gap Between Rookie and FA Contracts Mean We Must Redefine The Word "Reach"

    I've always hated the term "reach" when referring to draft picks. I mean sure there's a point where it becomes an obvious reach - like most of what the Raiders do. But really it's more complicated than that.

    Say with the 6th pick Blackmon is gone and Claiborne is there. Would taking Floyd at 6 then be called a reach? Perhaps. However, what if you have the rest of the WRs rated low and have a CB rated higher who you can grab in the 2nd? You dropped a little in talent level for a CB but gained in WR (at least according to our imaginary draft board.) So is Floyd really a reach at 6?

    I think teams need to think strategy for the whole draft and not get caught up in imaginary "reaches" and draft value. Sometimes just grabbing the BPA doesn't fit.
    berg8309 likes this.

  3. #48
    codeman123's Avatar
    codeman123 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    canada
    Age
    24
    Posts
    500
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Gap Between Rookie and FA Contracts Mean We Must Redefine The Word "Reach"

    Wrong. If a team needs a new starter at a given position, it makes all the sense in the world to consider both FA and the draft as a means of aquiring the right player. To fully evaluate the teams' options, the "going rate" is extremely relevant. Today's inflation of FA contracts and deflation of rookie contracts makes a difference because, in the end, teams have to stay within the cap.
    I've been on this board long enough to know you wouldn't alter your draft strategy based on free agency. I don't know why your talking about that here.
    You're acting like free agents never got substantially more money than draft picks. Only recently has there been a problem with draft pick compensation, and it was at the absolute top of the draft. That is why, like you know, they adopted a scale. There is a ratio between the contracts of FAs and draftees. Besides the top 5 picks in the draft, which the Rams aren't even in, the ratio isn't much different. A car cost 1500 dollars 100 years ago, but the ratio between salary and said car is still similar to now. That is what I'm seeing. Its not like free agents just started getting paid ridiculous contracts recently. The Redskins have been around for a while.

    Wrong again. There were people who said they like Blackmon, but the No. 2 (and later, No. 6) picks were too high. In the end, the biggest difference between spending a No. 6 pick and a No. 12 pick (apart from trade potential) is money.
    99% of people who don't want to take Blackmon (at 2 or 6) don't want to take him because they don't think his skill set transfers into the NFL. The same thing I said before. How is $500,000 a year the 'biggest difference between spending a 6 or a 12'. A big difference to me would be 6 players drafted between that point. It would be to all GMs as well.

    Actually, he's a good example. Smith's cap number impacts every decision the Rams will make regarding his future. If his cap number were substantially lower, it would not be such a big concern.
    That is why I said its salt in the wounds. You should stop acting like you perceive and understand what other people are saying. With all the frustration you've shared regarding people's ability, or lack thereof, to understand what you have said, you have no problem completing the other half of the loop.

    No, its dangerous with a rookie scale, and its potentially catastrophic without one. Of course, if you go back to my original post, I specifically said that teams should take the BPA on their boards, so I don't know why you're even arguing about drafting purely for need.
    If a team is going to take BPA regardless, why do you keep bringing up money. Its great that teams have extra money to spend, and rookie contracts aren't hemorrhaging teams. I doubt Snead and the GMs have very much involvement in contracts in the first place. There is a reason why Demoff is in charge of money, salary cap, and contracts. Demoff has no weight in personnel decisions.

    I frankly have no idea what you're trying to say here, other than it has absolutely nothing to do with my argument.
    At this point I don't think you have an argument, you're just trying to protect you're image of looking like you know what you're talking about. The only variable here is money, since its the variable you brought up and keep defending. Apparently you can perceive everything everyone else is saying and no one who disagrees with you can perceive what you're saying. That's not hypocritical.

    I believe teams absolutely are considering the scale as they make their choices. For example, if the Rams are left with the option of taking Trent Richardson (BPA) or a player at a "need" spot (Reiff, Floyd, Poe), I think the fact that Richardson - even as a player who will share time with Steven Jackson - is affordable under the rookie scale will factor heavily in their decision.
    That still didn't stop teams from taking RBs, even backup RBs in the first round before. It didn't stop the Bills from taking Spiller, Rams from SJax, Panthers from Stewart, ect.

    Or maybe they just made an ill-advised pick.
    And they didn't care about the money allocated to the pick. The only thing I can agree with you on, is the financial difference between the top 3 picks now compared to 3 years ago. The contract Blackmon will get at 6 isn't that much different than a few years ago. At 2, Blackmon would be getting a huge contract of guaranteed money. It still wouldn't affect how a team drafts, it would just be a nuisance to owe a rookie that much change. If the team had Blackmon, Kalil, and Claiborne ranked equally before the rookie wage scale they would probably still take Blackmon because he the team more than the other players.

    Of course it is a "lesser reach." With a lower cap number, a player who underperforms can be traded, replaced or even released without saddling the team with nearly as much "dead money." Seriously, what are you talking about?
    Why do you even care about classifying the severity of a reach or making everyone conform to your own perception of the word reach. Its completely irrelevant to actually picking a player.
    I really hope out FO isn't thinking about how to get rid of a failing draft pick before they even draft them. And it still hasn't stopped players from being cut or traded. The Bills still didn't keep Maybin despite the dead money it cost them. The Seahawks didn't waste any time trading Curry.

    I'll try to remember to send you a fruit basket with a formal apology note, Nancy
    If you didn't act like a condescending ass from the get go this thread would of lived happily with everyone having their own difference of opinion. Not everyone agrees with you, get over it. You're also not going to win over the people who don't agree with you by ridiculing and harrassing them.

    You are responsible for what you write and say and do. If you delete someone's post, neglect to comment on it, and then act like its out of bounds for someone to have a problem with it you're delusional. If call someone an idiot and assume its going to go over well, you're also delusional. I'm surprised no one else has called you out on it since you've done it to everyone who doesn't agree with you today.

    Apparently you have such an attachment to your personal image you can't even act like a person. You should look at who your calling Nancy since your hot and bothered by everything everyone says.

    Keep painting a picture of yourself. Its flattering so far.

  4. #49
    gap's Avatar
    gap
    gap is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,228
    Rep Power
    25

    Re: Gap Between Rookie and FA Contracts Mean We Must Redefine The Word "Reach"

    Unlikely Scenario... (but to make a point)

    The RAMS have uncovered never-before-released tapes of SBXXXVI, and traded them to the cheatriots for their fifth over all pick in the draft. They still have not found a suitable replacement for SJax, who just barely had another consecutive 1000 yd season. The only glaring need they have is RB. The top ten prospects are 2 QBs, 2 LBs, 3 OL (we have a line that resembles Timmerman, Nutten, Pace, etal), and 3 DL (Quin, Long, and Langford are Probowlers). Eric Dickerson III is rated between 10th and 15th overall, he wants to play for the RAMS, and wants wear his Grandfather's number. The RAMs can find no one that is will to trade for a pick outside the top two QB prospects. So who do they pick? Should they "reach" for ED III, or select the best of the top ten rated players?


    gap

  5. #50
    C-Mob 71's Avatar
    C-Mob 71 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    S. Illinois
    Posts
    1,506
    Rep Power
    45

    Re: Gap Between Rookie and FA Contracts Mean We Must Redefine The Word "Reach"

    Gap Between Rookie and FA Contracts Mean We Must Redefine The Word "Reach"-36jnck.jpg
    Still stand by my David Decastro example...

  6. #51
    DE_Ramfan's Avatar
    DE_Ramfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
    Posts
    908
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Gap Between Rookie and FA Contracts Mean We Must Redefine The Word "Reach"

    Quote Originally Posted by C-Mob 71 View Post
    Still stand by my David Decastro example...
    From a financial perspective I agree with you. Providing Decastro becomes a top guard of course, the money would be right for him at 6.

    However, from a team building perspective I don't think guards can be valued that high when you've got so many holes and there's other talent on the board. I guess it depends on how badly you need a guard. If you could still ground and pound your way to victory you could argue for it.
    Last edited by DE_Ramfan; -03-21-2012 at 01:02 AM.

  7. #52
    RockinRam's Avatar
    RockinRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    4,074
    Rep Power
    44

    Re: Gap Between Rookie and FA Contracts Mean We Must Redefine The Word "Reach"

    Quote Originally Posted by DE_Ramfan View Post
    From a financial perspective I agree with you. Providing Decastro becomes a top guard of course, the money would be right for him at 6.

    However, from a team building perspective I don't think guards can be valued that high when you've got so many holes and there's other talent on the board. I guess it depends on how badly you need a guard. If you could still ground and pound your way to victory you could argue for it.
    I would say we badly need a guard. Fisher wants to run the ball. With DeCastro manning the last guard spot, our interior is rock solid.

    Not to mention that DeCastro is also a great pass blocker. He's the best guard prospect to come out in a long time, and I wouldn't mind using our #6 on him.

    Of course, I'd rather trade down and then grab him there, but trading down is not always an option.

  8. #53
    DE_Ramfan's Avatar
    DE_Ramfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
    Posts
    908
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Gap Between Rookie and FA Contracts Mean We Must Redefine The Word "Reach"

    Quote Originally Posted by RockinRam View Post
    I would say we badly need a guard. Fisher wants to run the ball. With DeCastro manning the last guard spot, our interior is rock solid.

    Not to mention that DeCastro is also a great pass blocker. He's the best guard prospect to come out in a long time, and I wouldn't mind using our #6 on him.

    Of course, I'd rather trade down and then grab him there, but trading down is not always an option.
    I can agree with that. I'd rather have a weapon though but you can't always get what you want.

    I guess at the end of the day it's a math problem: If (Team need + Talent available at that position) divided by BPA > 0.... the player is not a reach?

  9. #54
    berg8309's Avatar
    berg8309 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,897
    Rep Power
    42

    Re: Gap Between Rookie and FA Contracts Mean We Must Redefine The Word "Reach"

    I think we need a more objective approach to this problem, and I have a proposal:

    If the Rams personnel is standing too far away from the commission when he tries to hand him the draft card, the guy is a "reach" because the Rams had to literally reach to hand over the card and select him. Sounds fair?

  10. #55
    DE_Ramfan's Avatar
    DE_Ramfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
    Posts
    908
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Gap Between Rookie and FA Contracts Mean We Must Redefine The Word "Reach"

    Quote Originally Posted by berg8309 View Post
    I think we need a more objective approach to this problem, and I have a proposal:

    If the Rams personnel is standing too far away from the commission when he tries to hand him the draft card, the guy is a "reach" because the Rams had to literally reach to hand over the card and select him. Sounds fair?
    Then with our first pick we clearly need to draft someone with a giant wing span. Then none of our picks will ever be reaches! Brilliant!

  11. #56
    MauiRam's Avatar
    MauiRam is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Maui, Hi.
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,802
    Rep Power
    79

    Re: Gap Between Rookie and FA Contracts Mean We Must Redefine The Word "Reach"

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    It almost makes you think that FA prices might actually impact draft plans given the rookie scale... what a concept.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    Yeah you are right.. but that's what the vet's wanted in the new deal.. they did not want to see rookies getting 50 Mil without playing a down. That money is better served going to players that have done something... I think it makes the draft even more critical, if you miss when the players are cheaper you can't build a team in free agency with the elite players asking so much and getting it. Mike Wallace will go back to the Steelers he just has not done it at that level long enough to get top dollar IMO. Plus a number one draft pick... not happening
    Gosh .. I may have posted this in the wrong thread .. Oh well ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: -10-26-2011, 11:35 PM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: -11-21-2010, 04:40 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: -11-14-2005, 06:31 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •